mikey287
-
Posts
318 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by mikey287
-
-
Most*
See: my location
-
Just now, oldunclemark said:
Good question, Mike....Can he miss 3 games and be MVP?
Probably not
It's up for grabs now...I'm not sure there's a candidate...but NFL and NHL for that matter, have made it a point to "penalize" players that miss a quarter of a season Tom Brady (2016, Matt Ryan) / Jaromir Jagr (2000, Chris Pronger). 3 games, though you could argue, they might not have needed the last one if things break their way standings wise...could be a factor...he will just need the benefit of the doubt, as he was the clear choice through 14 weeks...
-
Hope he still wins the MVP...
-
I clicked on about 10 or 12 players at random and pretty much all of the grades were about what I thought from watching...works for me. Thanks for sharing.
-
How the OP reads...
To more accurately answer the potential question that might be in there...Jaromir Jagr finished 7th in MVP voting in 2016 as a 43 year old.
-
My definition of bad game is sloppy, uninteresting play with players not playing at full capacity on teams not playing at full capacity. That game checked off all of the boxes. It came down to the end because neither team could get out of its own way to walk to an easy win. It took both teams giving the game away before one of them just took it by default. The mindset behind calling that game anything but bad is like when Big Ten boosters call the conference strong because of its mediocrity masquerading around as parity...[lipsticked_pig.jpg]
-
Thursday night games are generally bad...it's a shame, because if this was on Sunday at 1 pm (noon for yous?) it could have been a really good game...but considering they had played another game like 20 minutes before this one started, we got treated to a normal, non-entertaining game...which means I've seen exactly one entertaining game all season (NO vs Wsh). SAD!
-
To answer the question in the title, the linked article seems to suggest: "no." As it is being termed as two 15-yard penalties
-
Peyton Manning, come on down...
-
Finally, someone is getting how historical valuation and HOF vetting work. Bless you, Finball. On the plus side, all of that stuff was already brought up and contextualized as applicable. So there isn't much to add...
Moreover, like in the other posts of seemingly random information...at least one of those things isn't true. 11 QBs (not 5) have 300+ TDs...Carson Palmer (another HOFer? haha) would have been 12 this year if he didn't get hurt. So including Palmer, of the 12, eight have played this decade...if people aren't picking up the obvious era bias to these compilation stats then I don't know how to explain it better...it's kind of like asking why didn't George Washington just nuke the British and be done with it...that's ignoring that 300 is a meaningless number...it's round and easily digestible, but 300 has no more value than 335...which Eli is short of...
-
That is what every HOF in major sports is based on and that's what every player in every HOF was with very, very few exceptions. It is literally the entire point of the HOF is what you described "being elite at your position".
-
Namath is more or less the low bar for the HOF for QBs, and his "foundation" let's call it, because it's less than a resume certainly (see: page 1) is far better than Elisha's...for starters Namath was considered for All-Pro voting, whereas E.Man never was...because...well, he was never elite at any time. And since typically only elite players make the HOF...well...we can piece it together from there...
-
1 hour ago, RockThatBlue said:
3rd best QB of this generation behind Peyton and Brady IMO.
Drew Brees...?
-
So, just to add some more context...here's what you figure the 2018 HOF class will look like...
Ray Lewis, Randy Moss, Brian Dawkins, Alan Faneca...
2019: Tony Gonzalez, Ed Reed, Brian Urlacher, among others...
2020: Troy Polamalu, Champ Bailey...maybe Jeff Saturday...?
2021: Peyton Manning, Charles Woodson...
These are the names going in ya figure...you see Eli Manning belonging in with these names...? A guy who has never been a top-5 QB for any stretch of time...just a guy who was above average basically his whole career...he's gonna slide in there...? Boy, that would look really, really out of place...
-
So, Eli Manning gets blamed for the 2-9 start...not the coach that has done nothing in his life? No matter how you slice it, Geno Smith is an indefensible move. The kid from Cal or where ever, that I can at least buy because you're trying to figure out whether you need to draft anyone in four months...Geno Smith doesn't belong in the league. You sat Eli Manning for him - effectively blaming Eli for the 2-9 record. Even though he was 11-5 last year and had a winning record for his career...
Geno Smith, loser extraordinaire, 12-19 in his career. 29 passing TDs to 36 Ints (+19 fumbles)...just not smart.
-
Just skimmed these last few...if the idea is that Geno Smith gives a team...any team...a better chance to win than Eli Manning there is one other person in the history of civilization that thought that once and he was fired less than 24 hours after thinking it and the guy that agreed with him was too despite being in the organization for 24 years...it's not a good thought and it is objectively wrong to think that.
-
Do you ever wonder if people on other boards have posts titled... "Bjoern Werner, LB - Former 1st rounder released....should [we] take a low risk flier on a guy like this?"
-
Based on the names, I'm guessing "generation" means players that had their peak after 2000...? If I'm reading that correctly, you could roughly go...
A tier of: Manning, Brees, Brady. Those careers are largely finished, so they are the easiest to kind of fit into the puzzle. They aren't likely to add large chunks to their resumes at this point. I think you can safely say that they are all top 15 QBs of all-time. Pretty good case for Manning and Brees to be top 7 or 8. Brady is getting there...again, unless you really, really worship Super Bowls, then Brady is easily top 3, of course.
Next tier probably has: Rodgers...and maybe Rodgers alone at this point...he has some good career left hopefully. He's probably already a top-25 or -30 QB of all-time just squinting at things here early this morning...
Next tier is: Rivers, Romo, Roethlisberger ya figure...I guess Matt Ryan is working his way through there, but he's had less career than these guys so it's tough...
You mentioned Eli and Stafford...those are below everyone here...they don't even really rate. I mean, Eli will always be remembered for winning two Super Bowls. But let's take pull our heads out of our underpants for a second and just say Tyree drops it...Eli Manning becomes immediately forgettable...he just becomes another Phil Simms or Ron Jaworksi if he had won in 1980 or Mark Brunell...he's just not that relevant historically. Now, obviously, Tyree holds on...but is Eli Manning a better quarterback because Tyree made an impossible play? This is what I'm getting at is that these individual pop shots are not what you should get caught up in when discussing the historical merits of a player or, at the very least, you shouldn't lose sight of how fragile individual plays are in the grand scheme of history.
Let's use an example that hits closer to home...Hank Baskett doesn't botch that onside kick and the Colts have a pretty damn good shot of winning that Super Bowl...is Manning worse because Baskett booped it? Is Manning worse because Vanderjagt missed his kick and Vinatieri made his? And further, is Manning better because he did almost nothing in the worst season of his life but still got a Super Bowl out of it in Denver?
Again, no denying that Eli Manning did some awesome stuff...he's got that sizzle, but this a truck-stop steak...it's chewy, rough and overcooked...and it matches the eye test too...it's not like Eli Manning was a superstar or even a regular star...he was just an above average quarterback that had a couple of nice three-game stretches. That's more than a lot of guys can say, but it's not overwhelming when talking about the HOF. If we're prepared to make Eli Manning the 29th quarterback in the HOF, you better make way for a ton of other guys...probably another 40, easy.
-
Ben McAdieu*
-
That, and he would be, by a mile, the worst QB in the HOF. Let me try a different approach, because to have this be logically consistent, you have to do it all the way through...a vote for Eli Manning for the HOF requires such mental gymnastics via ungodly weight on two playoff runs that Tom Brady is - by a metric butt ton - the best QB of all time. You cannot separate those two things and still be logically consistent. This would also make Terry Bradshaw a top 10 QB, if not top 5...Troy Aikman, an iffy HOFer in his own right, becomes an option in the 10-15 area. It comes with a lot of nonsense to try to squint Eli Manning - a player who was never really a top 5 QB in the game for any stretch of time - into a HOFer...
-
Uhhh...all right, what we have here a failure to communicate. I'll just sit back and wait for the conversation to get back on the rails towards substance-ville...cheers.
-
Accomplishments of what regard though? I mean, at least one of them is false. Let's start popping these balloons. These ex post facto claims are crafted to an individual. No one sets out to "beat an undefeated team in a Super Bowl" - that's just not a thing...to do...it's entirely worthless the way its frame. It's entirely worthwhile from the sense of "he won a Super Bowl" trying to dress it up, again, with these ex post facto garnishes adds absolutely zippo to the case. In fact, it hurts it slightly because it's distracting and causes the reader to look for ways to cut down the embellishment.
HOF resumes are built on season to season impact. Impact on the game in an era. It's macro level. Completing 7 straight passes in the 3rd quarter of a game is completely - and I mean, complete and absolute - irrelevant. It's trivia.
It's neat. It's fun. I like it. But in a true discussion of the history of the game, this stuff need not apply.
Similarly, Steve Young is the only left handed QB in the HOF. Sammy Baugh is the only player to lead the league in passing yards and interceptions in the same season. Those are accomplishments. But they are only known because that niche was carved. Whereas, everyone sets out to lead the league in passing yards. That's an accomplishment. Leading the league in passing yards in Thursday Night games is just something that happens and it's an anecdote...one that has almost no merit to anything...
-
There is almost no question that he isn't. Compilation stats are inherently biased towards modern era players. That's why no one in the historical community of any sport really uses them because they create an illusion that will be toppled by the next generation. Or what happens when you go to an 18-game season...? What about players that had 9 super strong years, real impact season...like Bobby Orr in hockey...and here you're sitting here measuring players by how many numbers they compiled as opposed to how much of a season-to-season impact they had. It's a recipe for disaster.
Of the top 12 passing yard getters of all time...8 of them played in this decade (2010s)...is the thought, somehow, that 8 of the 12 best QBs of all time somehow graced our presence in the past few seasons? That seems highly unlikely doesn't it? Eli Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, Carson Palmer...? Yeah, stop, those players are Hall of Very Good at best.
Conversely, exactly 0 of the top 30 passers in history had their prime before the merger (1970). So, are we to blindly assume that all of the best QBs that have ever played have played in the last 40 years? That's ridiculous to the highest degree. Unless of course your all time list includes Joe Flacco, who will be 26th in passing yards next week without even adjusting for pass interference yards that he gets. Flacco is, in every way, a forgettable zit on the butt of NFL history...but he has more yards than Y.A. Tittle, so, what the hey...
That's why "finishes" as posed above are much more useful because it provides context to numbers and compares one to his peers...instead of an unrealistic standard of players playing in run-heavy times, in lesser-gamed seasons having to compete with the hyper passing offenses of today. 300 yards games don't mean nearly as much today as they did 20 years ago, that's plainly obvious at the micro level but over time (such as in a historical discussion) manifests itself at a macro level in a big and very meaningful way.
As someone who is very, very involved in hockey's historical community, I greatly enjoy the comparison of historical figures across eras...but it needs to be done responsibly. Alex Smith having more career passing yards than Len Dawson is not a responsible basis for an argument...needs context...desperately. By the logic posed above, every QB in the league that plays for 12 or more years will end up in the HOF...all of them. There's currently 28 in there after 100 years of pro football. It just doesn't work that way with the "career numbers" argument and it never will...
-
Also, at least one of those trivial points seems to be false...
This is the list of most consecutive completions in a Super Bowl. (not pictured: Elite Eli)
16 Tom Brady, New England vs. N.Y. Giants, XLVI 13 Joe Montana, San Francisco vs. Denver, XXIV 10 Phil Simms, N.Y. Giants vs. Denver, XXI
Troy Aikman, Dallas vs. Pittsburgh, XXX
Kurt Warner, Arizona vs. Pittsburgh, XLIII
Drew Brees, New Orleans vs. Indianapolis, XLIV9 Jim Kelly, Buffalo vs. Dallas, XXVIII
Neil O?Donnell, Pittsburgh vs. Dallas, XXX
Steve McNair, Tennessee vs. St. Louis, XXXIV
Peyton Manning, Indianapolis vs. Chicago, XLI
Sucking it up, update.... We are batting #3 (at least for the moment)
in Colts Football
Posted
Yeah, this QB class looks more impressive at the top end. Darnold is the best QB prospect since Luck, for my money. I was not that big on RG3 or Cousins coming out and what they did in retrospect doesn't have much to do with contemporary draft hype and projections...
Darnold/Rosen is impressive enough. Haven't looked at the tape on the big kid from Wyoming (?) closely yet...seems to be more highly regarded than Tannehill though. Lamar Jackson is a horrible passer even at the collegiate level, but some nincompoop will take him in the top 10 when really he should be a 6th or 7th round pick at best...